Trial Before Court of Session

The Court of Session tries the offences that the First Schedule makes exclusively triable by it, broadly those punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than seven years. The case reaches it only on committal by a Magistrate (S.232 BNSS), and the prosecution must be conducted by a Public Prosecutor (S.248). Chapter XIX of the BNSS (S.248 to S.260, formerly S.225 to S.237 CrPC, 1973) prescribes the procedure.

Legal Framework

Why: Sessions trials involve the gravest offences, where the consequence may be death or imprisonment for life. Committal, a judicial filter at discharge, a formal charge, full examination and cross-examination, the accused's examination, defence evidence, arguments and a separate hearing on sentence together ensure that no one is convicted of a serious offence without full scrutiny.

Example: A is accused of murder. The Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session. The Sessions Judge first decides, on the police report and documents, whether there is sufficient ground to proceed (S.250). If there is, a precise charge is framed (S.251). Every prosecution witness is examined and cross-examined (S.254), A is questioned on the incriminating circumstances (S.351), and A may lead defence evidence (S.256). If A is convicted, the judge must hear him separately on sentence (S.258(2)), and a death sentence needs special reasons (S.393(3)).

Procedure (Sequential Steps)

Discharge (S.250)

The accused may apply for discharge within 60 days from the date of commitment (S.250(1)). If, on the record, the documents and the submissions of both sides, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons (S.250(2)).

Standard for Discharge (Prafulla Kumar Samal)

Framing of Charge (S.251)

1. Not exclusively sessions triable: The Judge may frame a charge and transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, who tries it as a warrant case on police report (S.251(1)(a)).
2. Exclusively sessions triable: The Judge shall frame a charge in writing within 60 days from the first hearing on charge (S.251(1)(b)).
3. Plea: The charge is read and explained to the accused, present physically or by audio-video means, and he is asked whether he pleads guilty or claims to be tried (S.251(2)).

Sessions Trial Flow

flowchart TD
    A(["Committal S.232"])
    A --> B["PP opens case S.249"]
    B --> C{"Discharge? S.250"}
    C -->|Not sufficient ground| D(("Discharged"))
    C -->|Sufficient ground| E["Charge framed S.251"]
    E --> F{"Plea?"}
    F -->|Guilty| G["Conviction S.252"]
    F -->|Not guilty| H["Prosecution evidence S.253, S.254"]
    H --> I["Examination of accused S.351"]
    I --> J{"No evidence? S.255"}
    J -->|No evidence| K(("Acquittal S.255"))
    J -->|Evidence exists| L["Defence S.256"]
    L --> M["Arguments S.257"]
    M --> N(("Judgment S.258"))
    N --> O["Hearing on sentence S.258(2)"]

Hearing on Sentence (S.258(2), S.393(3))

• Separate hearing: After conviction, the Judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing it, unless he deals with the convict under the probation provision in S.401 (S.258(2)).
• Reasons: For an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, imprisonment for life or a term of years, the judgment must state the reasons for the sentence, and special reasons for a death sentence (S.393(3)).
• Rarest of rare: Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) read these provisions (S.235(2) and S.354(3) CrPC) as making life imprisonment the rule and death the exception, to be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.

Requirements

To test the validity of each stage of a sessions trial, check:

• Committal: Was the case committed under S.232 after copies were supplied under S.230?
• Prosecutor: Is the prosecution conducted by a Public Prosecutor (S.248), with any private advocate acting under his directions (S.338(2))?
• Discharge: Was the discharge application made within 60 days of commitment, and did the Judge apply the Prafulla Kumar Samal test and record reasons (S.250)?
• Charge: Was the charge framed within 60 days of the first hearing on charge, read and explained, and the plea recorded (S.251)?
• Evidence: Were prosecution witnesses examined and cross-examined (S.254), and the accused questioned under S.351?
• No evidence: If there was no evidence, was the accused acquitted at S.255 without being called on his defence?
• Judgment: Was the judgment given within 30 days of arguments, or 45 with reasons (S.258(1))?
• Sentence: Was the accused heard on sentence (S.258(2)), and were special reasons given for death (S.393(3))?

Illustrations

1. Discharge: The only material against A is a retracted statement of a co-accused and a motive. The evidence raises suspicion but not grave suspicion, and two views are equally possible. The Judge may discharge A (Prafulla Kumar Samal).

2. Transfer after charge: The Magistrate commits a case of grievous hurt. The Sessions Judge finds the offence is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. He may frame the charge and transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.251(1)(a)).

3. No evidence: After the prosecution closes, no witness has connected A with the crime. The Judge must record an acquittal under S.255 without calling on A to enter his defence.

4. No hearing on sentence: The Judge convicts A of murder and imposes death on the same day without hearing A on sentence. The sentence is open to challenge for breach of S.258(2), and for want of special reasons under S.393(3).

Key Cases

Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979

• Facts: The Special Judge discharged the accused in a corruption case under S.227 CrPC, and the High Court upheld the discharge. The Union of India appealed.
• Held: The Judge may sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding whether a prima facie case exists. Grave suspicion not properly explained justifies a charge; where two views are equally possible and the evidence raises only some suspicion, discharge is proper. The Judge is not a mere post office for the prosecution. The discharge was upheld.
• Principle: At the stage of discharge, the test is a prima facie case or grave suspicion, not proof.

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) Bachan Singh v State of Punjab 1980

• Facts: A Constitution Bench considered the validity of the death penalty for murder and the sentencing procedure in S.235(2) and S.354(3) CrPC.
• Held: The death penalty is constitutional. The sentencing provisions make life imprisonment the rule and death the exception, for special reasons, and the separate hearing on sentence under S.235(2) lets the court consider the circumstances of the crime and the criminal.
• Principle: Death only in the rarest of rare cases, after a real hearing on sentence.

State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) Anwar Ali Sarkar v State of WB 1952

• Held: A law allowing the State to send any case to a Special Court with a shorter procedure, without a reasonable classification, violated Art.14.
• Principle: Every accused is entitled to the ordinary procedural safeguards of trial unless a reasonable classification justifies a different procedure.

Sunil Mehta v State of Gujarat (2013) Sunil Mehta v State of Gujarat 2013

• Held: In a warrant case instituted on a complaint, statements recorded before cognizance under Chapter XV CrPC are not evidence for framing a charge. The accused has a right to cross-examine the witnesses examined under S.244 CrPC before the charge.
• Use here: It shows the contrast with a sessions trial, where the discharge and charge stages are decided on the police report and documents without evidence (S.250, S.251).

Distinctions

Criticism and Debate

• Time limits without consequences: The BNSS adds limits of 60 days for a discharge application, 60 days for framing the charge and 30 to 45 days for judgment, but does not say what follows if they are missed. Without consequences they may be treated as directory.
• Delay in sessions trials: Long pendency means undertrials spend years in custody before a verdict. Audio-video evidence (S.254) and deferring cross-examination may help, but the bottleneck is often witnesses and forensic reports.
• Sentencing hearings as formality: Bachan Singh requires a real hearing on sentence, but in practice it often happens on the day of conviction with little material on mitigation.
• Discharge standard: The "grave suspicion" test can lead to charges in weak cases, especially where the Judge is reluctant to discharge in serious offences.

Essay Outline

1. Introduction: The Court of Session and exclusive triability.
2. Committal and the Public Prosecutor: S.232, S.248, S.338.
3. Discharge: S.250; Prafulla Kumar Samal.
4. Charge and plea: S.251, S.252.
5. Evidence and examination of the accused: S.253, S.254, S.351; acquittal under S.255.
6. Defence, arguments, judgment: S.256 to S.258.
7. Sentence: S.258(2), S.393(3); Bachan Singh.
8. Critique and conclusion.

Recall Check

1. How does a case reach the Court of Session?
2. What is the difference between discharge (S.250) and acquittal (S.255, S.258)?
3. Who conducts the prosecution in a sessions trial?
4. What are the principles for discharge laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal?
5. What new time limits does the BNSS add to sessions trials?
6. Why is a separate hearing on sentence required?

Flashcards